JzG has a long history, dating back more than a decade, of uncivil behavior and abusing his powers as an administrator to gain an advantage in disputes. I, personally, have been on the receiving end of both uncivil comments and abuse of tools. (Personal attack removed) As I have come to learn, administrator noticeboards are insufficient to deal with this problem as they consider only the immediate incident without taking into account the overall pattern of conduct. In this case, the pattern is that JzG is uncivil, gets called out, is admonished, improves for a while, then slips back into incivility.

I have named as parties all those who have mentioned ArbCom as a remedy to me, either to suggest or caution against it, but history shows many more will be interested. In at least once instance, because a long discussion could not produce a consensus on what sort of penalty to impose upon JzG, none was. This seems to me to be exactly the type of situation where ArbCom should get involved: something needs to be done, but no one can agree what.

I have seen other editors sanctioned for much less, and rightfully so. I'm not sure why, especially as an administrator, JzG's chronic incivility has been tolerated for so long. He may improve after a warning, but it never seems to stick.

First, I wholeheartedly apologize again to JzG for the off-wiki comment. I was using Google to find a comment made on-wiki and inadvertently found the other material. I didn't realize it would be considered a personal attack. Second, this is not about "he called me a Catholic." I have already accepted JzG's apology. Twice. It is about a long standing pattern of conduct. Finally, I am painfully aware of my many inadequacies, both as an editor and as a person. I apologize sincerely for the times I have fallen short of the community's standards, beg your forgiveness, and accept any sanctions imposed upon me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

An identical complaint was just closed at ANI here as stale, based in no small part on the fact that interactions between Slugger and me are initiated by him and I am doing my best to avoid him.

The meat of the complaint is that I called him a Catholic, and did not notice that he had said he was not. I apologised. It was a reasonable inference from his edit history, which primarily consists of adding pro-Catholic content at a number of articles closely related to the Catholic church. Apparently he has said this at least once before but we both tend to the prolix so I missed it.

ArbCom is for intractable disputes, not for cases where someone doesn't get the answer they want, or refuses to accept another editor's expressed will to disengage. Guy (help!) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit mystified by my supposed hostility to Christianity. At the risk of going all "my black friend", I have been a member of a church for most of my life, first Baptist, then Anglican, then Methodist, then Anglo-Catholic, then Anglican again. I practically grew up in St. Albans Abbey (my school was in an old Abbey building) and was in a Catholic church at my goddaughter's first communion when habemas papam was declared for Pope Francis, whom I admire greatly (though I confess to being no fan of his predecessor). I have sung the Exsultet as cantor, I've been on a Parochial Church Council and foundation governor of a church school, my wife is an organist and my best friend is a choirmaster at a church. As a choral singer I would be a bit stuffed if I was hostile to religion. Obviously I am not conservative, but I'm not as left-wing as Jesus either. And I'm not hostile to Americans. You hung my ancestor but I'm over it. Guy (help!) 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About that revdel. It was a mistake. I said a thing I regretted. I removed it. When people said that was a bad idea, I immediately accepted they were right and reversed it. Of course I should have known better. I should have known better than to make the comment. It was stupid, I recognised it as such and ANI seems to have thought that was the end of it. That is the first and only time it has happened, and it was over a month ago. The chances of me ever doing that again are exactly zero. If ArbCom genuinely thinks that one error is sufficiently egregious as to be sanctionable, then please just desysop me now by motion and be done with it. Guy (help!) 16:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

I don't consider myself to be involved. However:

With this particular ANI [1], it was resolved because everyone who cared to ran over to the article talk page to engage in normal editing and consensus building. This can be seen in the closer's statement. I'm pretty sure this is the optimal sought after result with any similar thread. Everybody decides to go off and play well. Also, regarding the claim that JzG edit warred, well the closing statement notes that both editors engaged in slow motion edit warring.

Regarding abuse of tools, well that has been resolved and I see no reason for bringing this up here. As can be seen in the closer's statement [2] "JzG (Guy) made an erroneous admin action, reversed it."

In this ANI [3] I think Slugger had the mistaken impression that reviewing some of JzG's history going back quite awhile would be acceptable. This thread pretty much lacked direction and substance, imho. Also, in this thread, it seems any minor outstanding issues were resolved [4], [5].

I think Slugger received some valuable feedback in this recent request for a TBAN appeal [6].---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:*If Arbcom opens a case, I still consider myself uninvolved, and probably will not be participating. After five recent admin boards, as noted by Puedo, I think enough is enough. And I will echo Tony B. here, the community has shown it is capable of resolving these issues. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

I don't consider myself a party, other than commenting in one of the AN/I threads and recommending Slugger O'Toole to take a consideration at ArbCom if AN/I is unable to deal with chronic issues.

19 April 2020 AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Stop the Church
26 April 2020 AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Edit warring by JzG
4 May 2020 AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#JzG
2 June 2020 AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#TBAN appeal
6 June 2020 AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Years of incivility

JzG's conduct has been inappropriate and ANI threads did not alter it. Personal attacks and battleground mentality included comments like [7][8][9]. In particular, the first diff that had the edit summary of Your obsession with the magic bread is becoming tiresome (referring to the Eucharist) was condemned by many users.

Then after the AN/I thread, JzG made a further personal attack which he himself rev-deleted (deletion log). This is detailed in the 4 May AN/I thread. JzG was lucky that he had the time to undo the rev-deletion himself, as Guerillero commented that the action is firm grounds for a de-sysoping at arbcom. This ANI thread was closed by Lourdes with the statement that JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. But as it stands, this voluntary promise didn't last for very long.

FWIW, AlmostFrancis, who was a party to the medicine ArbCom case and has been tailing JzG since his first edits in December 2018, now seems to be following Slugger O'Toole to articles he has edited. AlmostFrancis removed Slugger O'Toole's messsage about hounding concerns with the edit summary of "LOL".

JzG has multiple previous ArbCom admonishments and back in the day there was a whole RFC/U about his incivility. --Pudeo (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Wrt a pattern, this AN/I thread is pretty recent (March 2019):

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Threatened with block by edit-warring admin using "fuckoff" template.

The close was JzG is warned that the community's patience for repeated incidents of incivility is wearing extremely thin. Many administrators even supported a block there. While JzG hasn't used F-bombs towards Slugger (as with the "fuck off" template there), the ANI thread was also much about a content dispute that went south because of incendiary behavior (i.e. WP:BATTLEGROUND with incivility). I can't think of much more incendiary conduct than attacking someone's religious beliefs in a content dispute. --Pudeo (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

Like Pudeo, I don't consider myself a party in this case. I support the idea, expressed by others here, of taking a look into JzG/Guy's recent edit history, and not just looking for incivility, but his overall editing. I suggest that the ArbCom members simply start two or three weeks back, and scroll through. Some of you may find it remarkable and worthy of deeper scrutiny. Jusdafax (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Slugger's statement about JzG being "infamous ... off-wiki" is out of order here and, frankly, an actionable personal attack. Any editor or admin who has become involved in controversial issues has been and will be criticized, attacked, harassed, doxed, etc. by their opponents on any number of off-wiki platforms. That fact should have absolutely zero bearing on a case before the Arbitration Committee. Slugger's clearly-intended implication that it should have some sort of relevance indicates their case is based on sort of "guilt by harassment" mentality. If Slugger's argument boils down to "Internet trolls are angry at JzG, therefore he must be punished!" then this calls for BOOMERANG sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

This report should have included a link to the most-recent ANI, filed by Slugger, which closed two days ago. [10] In that June report, Slugger wrote that since the prior May report (linked above), JzG responded on all three [threads started by Slugger], sometimes more than once, and addressed me directly (though admittedly civilly). If JzG's interactions since the May ANI thread were, by Slugger's own admission, civil, then there is no reason to take JzG to ANI, or to Arbcom. If a user is warned, and then the user does not repeat the conduct that they were warned about, the user can't be taken to a noticeboard again over the same conduct, as it's already been dealt with and there hasn't been a repeat. If there are no recent diffs of incivility, then that means the warning issued in May worked. (Congratulations, ANI, another dispute resolved!) Unless there are some new diffs to look at since May, this case request should be declined. Ongoing unaddressed incivility is only ongoing unaddressed incivility if it's ongoing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 54129

Some up to date evidence would be nice, and that not cherrypicked to death. Two of those ARB-cases are from a decade (and more) ago. Of the ANI cases, all but one were filed by Slugger in a (failed, by their nature) attempt at sanctioning JzG. The common motif here is Slugger. Suggest a one-way I-ban on them against JzG. That should prevent the appearance of WP:BATTLEGROUND to the point of WP:HARASSment. And of course, if JzG is egregiously out of order any time soon, it's not as if there's not quite a few independent admin eyes watching him, so Slugger's particular talents in this area would be unnecessary anyway. ——Serial^# 17:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the comment ClerkCameron removed tells us, I suggest, more than we need to know about Slugger's methods. Off-wiki research into opponents? I seem to remember a recent arbcase where that ended poorly. ——Serial^# 17:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Binksternet

If the main complaint here is that Guy said Slugger was Catholic, then the request for arbitration should be thrown out. Slugger has marched in a pro-life protest with the Knights of Columbus who are Catholic, he uploads tons of stuff related to Catholics, and he's a huge contributor to the Catholic University of America page. He has acted as an agent for CUA by uploading images "courtesy of" Catholic University of America.[11][12] His first username was Briancua, the "cua" standing for Catholic University of America. Any statement that he's not Catholic would have to be an obfuscation. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Binksternet doesn't go far enough; SO'T hasn't just marched with the Knights of Columbus, he explicitly declared himself to be a member of the Knights of Columbus, a group whose membership is explicitly limited to Catholics. If the only fresh complaint here is "JzG said I was Catholic", this is about as tendentious as tendentious editing gets. ‑ Iridescent 18:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I can understand that an editor who is a member of a religion might not want to be identified in that manner on Wikipedia, but when the evidence of membership is so strong, it is a eminently forgivable error for another editor to do so. In this case, Guy has been told that SOT does not want to be identified that way, has apologized for identifying him in that manner in the past, and has pledged not to do so in the future. No harm, no foul -- so why are we here? I would suggest that the Committee decline this case, and perhaps even admonish the OP for bringing a frivolous action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I associate myself with the comment by Floquenbeam below. It is obvious what this case is about, and it ain't JzG's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NightHeron: JzG has been involved in contentious disputes because he edits in contentious areas where SPAs and PoV editors wish to use Wikipedia to promote their fringe ideas, regardless of our policies. He is stalwart in defending the encyclopedia against these people, and for this he gets "Accept" votes by arbitrators who ought to know better? Astounding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate Brad's "Decline", I disagree that JzG could be equally effective with a different way of dealing with things. I think it's time for a number of arbitrators to get back into the trenches and see exactly what it's like to deal with the kind of problems that Guy has to deal with on a daily basis. After being hit on the head times after time, day after day, it ain't so easy to be Mary Sunshine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It actually pains me to say this, but given that 3 arbitrators have !voted to open a case which is obviously an attempt by a problematic editor to pursue a vendetta, and in light of a number of other decisions made by the committee this year (which I won't go into at this time, but will at the appropriate moment, i.e. ACE2020), there is something very wrong with ArbCom. Collectively, with some individual exceptions as far as I can determine, they appear to be more concerned with political correctness and not appearing "soft" to the WMF than they are about actually helping to insure that English Wikipedia is strong and protected from SPAs, PoV editors, and sockpuppets. I find that very concerning and disheartening, but I note it for the record. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August: "Why is it so hard to be nice to each other?" Maybe because many of the people JzG deals with on a daily basis are actively trying to do harm to Wikipedia, something that (presumably) Guy cares about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

It almost seems like we have drifted into Nineteen Eighty-Four territory here. Slugger O'Toole openly self-identified on Wikipedia as a member of the Knights of Columbus over 14 years ago and that is a group that limits its membership to Roman Catholics. Slugger engaged in such tenacious pro-Catholic POV pushing at Knights of Columbus that he received a topic ban on that article. Slugger has also engaged in pro-Catholic POV pushing at articles about other Catholic topics for years. Slugger recently appealed the topic ban, which several other editors including JzG opposed, and the ban stands. Since, Slugger has spent lots of time on various attempts to get JzG sanctioned, and contends that it is unacceptable to mention that a Knights of Columbus member is a Catholic. Slugger is so upset at what he sees as JzG's personal attack that he himself engages in a personal attack on JzG. So, here we are. No evidence has been presented of recent incivility by JzG. As a matter of fact and as others have pointed out, Slugger said at ANI that JzG "addressed me directly (though admittedly civilly)". So, JzG has been civil to Slugger recently, and yet here we are, trying to wrap our heads around the claim that JzG needs to be punished for incivility even though he has been civil recently. So bizarre. Perhaps some people think that the normal standards of logic and reason no longer apply in 2020. I disagree and recommend that the committee decline this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

This doesn't look like a "he called me a Catholic and I'm mad" complaint. The prior dispute resolution section cites arbcom cases dating back over a decade, as well as ANI cases dating to earlier this year. The complaint is long-term incivility that hasn't improved; if "he called me a Catholic and I'm mad" matters at all, it's only as the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I am slightly concerned at many of the statements here, since they all focus on the recent event and not the previous ones or the alleged long-term pattern. Showing that JzG was justified in calling Slugger O'Toole a Catholic doesn't resolve the case request then. No comment on the merits of the complaint, however.

It seems all (?) the ANI threads were started by Slugger O'Toole. That doesn't seem like strong grounds for a case then, since it implies that only one person is troubled by JzG's behavior. Banedon (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an arbitrator (I'm not), I'd lean decline. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence of a problem (as in, evidence that a problem exists, not evidence that Guy's behavior is problematic). So far there've been three pieces of evidence: by Slugger O'Toole, pudeo, and Netoholic. The first are all ANI cases brought by one person, so on its own it's hard to consider it sufficient for a case. For the second, this thread linked by pudeo is very concerning. If there were more such threads, especially ones that happened after this thread was closed, I'd be more inclined to accept, but on its own it's not enough. Finally for the third, I don't actually see much of a civility dispute in either thread. If the dispute is over what should or should not be included in the Brian Martin (social scientist) article, then that's a content dispute and not something to resolve at arbitration. Accordingly, I'd lean decline with the possibility of switching to accept if more evidence of a dispute is brought up. Banedon (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

I don’t see anything worth having a case over here. I support Guy. Not sure if that matters much, but might as well state it. I’ve never publicly declared my religion on Wikipedia, unlike SO’T, but people assume it because I edit Catholic topics. It can be frustrating because the Catholic Church is arguably the most studied religion in the world from an academic perspective, but I get why people might make that assumption. He’s stated he’s a member of the KoC. If he doesn’t want you calling him Catholic, probably best not to, but Guy has done nothing wrong here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the pattern issue, I do think staleness is a concern in terms of fairness. First, while ArbCom is the only body that can desysop, the community process for reviewing admin actions is primary. If no one felt there was an issue enough to merit an ArbCom case to file a case then, it shouldn’t be enough to file a case now. Getting dragged through the coals at ANI isn’t a particularly fun experience and there should be a sense of finality to it just from a basic fairness perspective to the person involved. Are there any current issues that the community as a whole is concerned about? Accepting cases after ANIs have been resolved would basically give a gift to people with grudges against individual admins. They could request review at any time, even after issues have already been put to rest. Guy should take on any legitimate concerns, but we shouldn’t be putting him through a second round of review over things that have already been resolved. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Xxanthippe

My observation of the edits of JzG/Guy over the years is that they contain a high level of concerning behavior. I leave a more detailed accounting of this undesirable conduct to the previous attempts at dispute resolution listed above and to editors who have commented already, particularly Pudeo. I am not able to say more at present. I suggest that Arbcom accept this case but expand it from consideration of the one incident to take in the pattern of long term behavior that is indicated above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC).

Statement by Alanscottwalker

I understand there was an apology and an acceptance of the apology concerning the Catholic comment, so the committee can move on from that. Nonetheless, let's note that calling out another editor's religion, race, sexual orientation, etc, tends to be problematic given the ethic is to focus on the contribution, not the contributor, and also under the non-discrimination policy. (Compare, in editing BLP's Wikipedia also recognizes those aspects can tend to controversy.) With respect to one's religion, let's also note that being an individual presently or formerly Catholic, or Hindu, or Baptist, or . . . does not guarantee lack of criticism of those (eg,. probably some Catholics, etc, are not happy with their religion/church etc.), which reinforces that the focus should not be on the editor's religion (or lack thereof) but rather on their edits. For those interested in logic, see ad hominem fallacy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

I have been summoned. I don't have overly strong feelings about this case. While I did go on the record about Guy's use of WP:RevDelete, he has seemed to taken on the feedback. As for the other parts of this dispute, I am going to chose to stay Uninvolved due to my role as a clerk. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Netoholic

I would like to draw attention to the significant unresolved issues related to JzG's open animosity to a BLP article subject (Brian Martin who, in a journal, criticized JzG's editing of his Wikipedia article) as detailed in these discussions. There is evidence presented in these discussions (which can be expanded upon) that JzG has engaged in what can only be described as retaliatory editing and public disparagement of the BLP subject.

I concur with the case request premise that, despite the prior RfCs, ANI, and ArbCom admonishments, there continue to be uncivil and dismissive comments to editors. One veiled method JzG's used is to invoke Arkell v. Pressdram (just "fuck off" with extra steps)[13][14][15][16]. -- Netoholic @ 16:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

There have been multiple civility ANI actions brought against JzG throughout the years and it's not just "He called me a Catholic." In addition, there is the fact he REVDELED his own civil violation edit and got away with it at ANI, which seems to happen often with many of his civil ANI complaints, so I do think it's time for ARBCOM to take a look at the past, even if it's not 100% recent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I note the comments of the decline and go back to my TBAN, and how people went into my history and made comments regarding my edits from 2016 and note some similarities, but then again, I'm not an admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlmostFrancis

I hope it is not out or order that I added myself as a party. As I will be adding information on Slugger's editing I thought it only fair. Too add to Puedo's comment about me I did want to make clear that I explained why I found Slugger's comment funny and why I had "followed" him to another article. I think it is indicative of some of the disingenuity I have found with Slugger's editing so will go though the whole process. In his tban request, while he pinged over twenty people, he commented on me in a dishonest way and then did not ping me. Even a quick perusal of the Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS talk page show that we were not working through the article together, that "we sometimes disagreed" is a dishonest assessment of the level of strife, and that "the normal give and take" is not an honest assessment of editing on the page. In the same conversation I explain that I ended up at the CUA page looking for a fair diff of Slugger misusing Catholic sources. He replies, thus acknowledging that he knows how I ended up at CUA. That comment is also disingenuous in light of this and this, as it implies he always takes sources to RSN and that RSN can't be part of stonewalling. So that brings us to the hounding accusation [diff. Slugger already knows how I got to all the articles, knows that the noticeboards I supposedly followed him are public and involved my editing, knows that he was the one who got me involved in the only user talk page I ever "followed" him too, and knows why I commented on his tban request and that he mentioned me in the request. It easy to stop outright lying but vague dishonesty is very hard to compassionately stop. Sorry for the length but you all agreed to the job :)AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is a very poorly written Request for Arbitration. It can be read as a request for the ArbCom to intervene in a particular dispute between the filing editor and an administrator, which is how it is written on its face. Alternatively, if the ArbCom chooses to do a more thorough analysis than the filer had done, it can be read as a request for the ArbCom to review the long-term conduct of a high-profile administrator who is usually right and sometimes wrong, to determine whether he is wrong too often. Since the ArbCom has been entrusted by the community with a great deal of responsibility and authority, the ArbCom should review this request as if a better request had been written by a more reflective editor.

In the past, the ArbCom has seemed to look at a Requests for Arbitration involving alleged administrator abuse in detail, to determine whether it presented a prima facie case of misconduct. The filer has not presented a good case against the administrator. Some ArbCom cases are frivolous. This request is not frivolous, but it is one of the worst non-frivolous presentations that I have seen. However, the combination of the information in the filing and the information provided by other editors goes back more than a decade, and raises enough concerns to warrant a full evidentiary case. The request is a badly presented case by an editor who has a record of being tendentious, but the ArbCom should open a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought by Robert McClenon

I see that ArbCom is about to decline this case. That is understandable, although it is likely to be seen after the fact to have been a mistake. ArbCom has two wrong options with this case. Accepting it, when, as various editors and arbitrators have implied, it was filed in revenge by a combative editor, is a wrong option. Declining it, when there is a long record of concern about the administrator going back a decade, will also be a mistake. Maybe JzG will take Newyorkbrad's reminder seriously, but the usual rule when a case is declined based on the hope of improvement is that there is no improvement.

"Don't say we didn't warn you." Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

I'm not keen on rewarding FORUMSHOPPING, that behaviour should be discouraged, and to be honest, Slugger O'toole appears to just be carrying their grievances across from forum to forum and thread to thread: First ANI thread (that I am aware of), second thread and then third thread (in the span of a month, and with no action required in any case). Notably, JzG made a misstep using the tools to revdel his own comment, he should have anticipated the backlash from the 'more transparency' crowd [which is a common attack on ArbCom themselves], regardless of his motivations for using the tools. I'm not sympathetic to the complaint about being called a Catholic issue, for the reasons that Cullen lays out.

Whatever happened to the rule that cases should not be named after individual parties because it prejudices the case? Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

@Mr rnddude: there is no such rule. It is recommended, perhaps strongly so, to avoid naming cases about disputes around a single topic involving multiple parties about one of them (at least in part for the reason you give), however this a request for an examination of the behaviour of one editor across many different topics so the request name seems appropriate.

On the substance of the issue, I haven't read every comment here in detail but there are enough concerns expressed about JzG's behaviour in those I have read to warrant arbcom taking a structured look. It is entirely possible that the review will conclude that no sanctions are required, but that would still have been a good use of the Committee's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I'm surprised - more than surprised - that ArbCom members voting to accept can't see this for what it is. Disheartening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the Elfin Dog

Don't normally bother with this forum, but really, Floq has hit the nail on the proverbial. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reyk

Basically Bradv's decline is correct. There is no ongoing issue that previous discussions haven't addressed. I'm not a lawyer type but if I was, phrases like retroactive legislation and double jeopardy would come up. Reyk _YO! 16:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

It's disheartening to see several arbs vote to accept this case, and I urge the rest of the committee to decline. Here we have a topic-banned POV-pusher attempting to bring about a "review" of a long-serving and highly-active admin just because that admin has had several ANI threads opened against him in the past. ArbCom is supposed to be a last resort. It is not the case that the community has been unable to resolve anything. ANI seems to have done its job. JzG has had a warning for his past incivility and has acted upon that, to the satisfaction of the filing party. The only example of "abuse of tools" that the filer has been able to show is the revdel, which again JzG has admitted was a mistake and has vowed not to repeat. So why exactly is it necessary for ArbCom to open a case here?-- P-K3 (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NightHeron

JzG has participated in many contentious content disputes, and this inevitably results in hard feelings by some editors. Sanctioning him would convey the message to other admins that they had better stay away from difficult disputes so as not to make enemies who will find some excuse to complain to ArbCom about them. That's not a message that should be sent. NightHeron (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoJo Anthrax

To my knowledge I have never before interacted with the disputants, or for that matter with arbitration committee proceedings. If the initiator's primary motivation here is anything more substantial than sour grapes, however, I fail to see it. What I do see is an active administrator who, like I assume most of us, in the past has made some mistakes, has admitted it, and has successfully moved on by improving their actions. That does not represent a pattern of long term conduct that merits investigation here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rusf10

I would urge the arbs to take on this case. As some have already acknowledged staleness is not relevant when we are talking about administrative conduct. Since this is the only way to remove an administrator, there should not be such a high bar here. Sure, the filer may not have laid out the best case either, but when JzG's conduct over time is considered, there is a pattern of JzG using his administrative powers to gain an advantage in disputes. His actions here were unacceptable and he received a stern warning, yet here are a year later and JzG is engaging in similar behavior. Anyone who wants to know what JzG believes need go no further than the archived version of the essay he wrote The original version is basically a attack page on editors who support Trump or have conservative viewpoints. Some quotes for that version but it is an undeniable fact that he (Trump) is corrupt, dishonest, untruthful, a racist, a misogynist, So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia, It's about the fact that America currently has a President who is a crook and a liar who lost the popular vote and is in office only because of dark money and the interference of a hostile foreign power, and there is a massive conspiracy on the right to pretend these facts are not true., and If you can't admit he's (Trump) dishonest, whether or not you support him, you are not competent to edit. The current version has been toned down somewhat, but the message is still the same. People with with views different than his are not only wrong, but too incompetent to edit wikipedia. Someone with these type of divisive views simply does not have the temperament to be an administrator. I am not asking for JzG to be banned or blocked, but simply to have his administrative tools taken away.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

Sigh … I doubt this incident warrants an ArbCom case. But … I have to say that I am repeatedly disappointed in JzG’s behavior. Yes JzG does lots of good work, but really why is it so hard for so many of us (JzG is not alone in this) to be nice to each other?

@Beyond My Ken: "Maybe because many of the people JzG deals with on a daily basis are actively trying to do harm to Wikipedia, something that (presumably) Guy cares about?" That's no excuse. That we care about something doesn't give us license to be uncivil. That we care about the encyclopedia, should in fact make us even more civil. Incivility just makes things worse. Paul August ☎ 19:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Or more simply, being nice and caring about the encyclopedia are not mutually exclusive. Paul August ☎ 21:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beetstra

It is disheartening to see Arbs voting to accept on the basis that behaviour might escalate.

I once killed a fly. Lock me up, it might escalate and I may murder a real person. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

I'm rather sad and disappointed to see Arbs genuinely wanting to accept this case, Maybe I've been living under a rock for a few years but I've never had issues with Guy and I don't believe their behaviour warrants a case - Everything to me knowledge has been dealt with sufficiently at AN/I. –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

JzG: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Clerk Note I've removed a comment from Slugger O'Toole's section as a personal attack. It had already been struck through but its best not to leave these things standing. As a reminder to all participants you are expected to remain civil and abstain from personal attacks in arbitration space. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline. The ANI was closed as stale, and absent any concerns more recent than that, none of which have been provided, I don't see where there's enough for a case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. It's reasonable to reject a complaint as "stale" at ANI, but ArbCom can and should be concerned with long-term conduct issues. We set a low bar for prior dispute resolution with admin conduct complaints and there have been enough concerns expressed about JzG's conduct that a systematic review is justified. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like this is heading for a decline, but I wanted to comment that this "stale" idea could set an undesirable precedent. ArbCom is one of, if not the, only venues we have that can reasonably examine low-level but long-term misconduct, which we have seen can be highly disruptive. It doesn't seem relevant to me whether precipitating incident happened yesterday or a year ago, as long as there is evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct problems. And if we expect filing parties to bring us incidents that are somehow "fresh" and have been through the whole gamut of prior dispute resolution, I fear we're putting up yet another barrier to ArbCom functioning as a useful dispute resolution body rather than Wikipedia:Request discretionary sanctions. – Joe (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Joe that if an overall pattern of conduct is alleged, this should be under review even if the episode that prompted the Case request has been flagged as stale. As such, discussions about this narrow episode seem counterproductive. However, the filer has also only mentioned examples relating to this incident and not of a pattern of misconduct, so I'd like to wait for more statements that, as Banedon pointed out, don't just focus on whether someone is right to call someone else "Catholic". Regards So Why 09:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline echoing Newyorkbrad's comment. While I agree that ArbCom can and should be concerned with long-term issues of conduct as Joe argues, cases should still not be a pointless exercise only rehashing old problems. As such, a case request discussion should contain at least some indication that further disruption is likely to occur if behavior is not scrutinized and remedies not issued. I fully understand my colleagues who voted to accept this case request and I strongly considered it myself but at this point I don't think there is enough evidence to indicate that any case could result in anything but another reminder to Guy to be more careful and I think this case request and the comments here and by the community already serve this purpose without needing a full case. Like NYB, I remain open to accepting this or another case request against JzG if circumstances change. Regards So Why 08:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept with regret. After reading yesterday, thinking overnight, and reading more this morning, my threshold for reviewing admin misconduct complaints is met with the threads just from this year listed by Pudeo, in which, most egregiously to me, we see revdel of Guy's own comments (reversed after objection, but still, really?). I think we need to take a look. For those following active/inactive arb activity at home, I'm inactive in general at the moment but I'll (hopefully) return in about ten days, so I'll be active on this case. Katie^talk 14:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I don't think that one revdel error is enough to desysop over. We could have done without the snark in the log entry undoing it, but whatever. And I can see that this business of calling the filer a Catholic or 'religionist' is overblown, and that you are at loggerheads with them. But I do think we need to have a review. I seem like a righteous bitch about admin conduct because it's important. I'm not familiar enough with your record to decide if sanctions are warranted, so I'd like to have the opportunity to look it over. That's what my vote is. Please do not put words in my mouth about desysopping before I actually get to the point where I think it's necessary. Katie^talk 16:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept , Time to review the behavior . This isn't the place to draw conclusions about it, but I agree with comments that the Catholic issue is a misunderstanding, and irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised and discouraged by those of myo f my colleagues who are unwilling to consider earlier behavior. We have for too long declined cases because the new incidents by themselves ae not sufficient, and the earlier ones too old, thus making it impossible for the to ever be a time for a record of continuing sub-par behavior to be at least discussed, until something particularly outrageous occurs. Our role is prevention of conflict not punishment, and we should be willing to deal with preventing admins from continuing conduct that might escalate. I had been under the impression that we were overcoming such narrow a view of our role, but I see the committee deliberate continuing a policy which prevents this sort of admin conduct from ever being examined still persists. (I also think we are not considering sufficiently whether the material quoted by Rusf10 shows a temperament incompatible with not just NPOV, but discouraging the honest expression of views.) I'm not saying what w might conclude, but just that these need to be fully discussed in the context of a full case. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline, while I have a low bar for accepting cases involving administrator misconduct, a case only serves a purpose if there are ongoing problems that the community has been struggling to deal with. The issues listed in this filing are all resolved, stale, or both, and in most of those instances, including the most recent one, JzG has responded fairly positively to feedback. It simply wouldn't do the encyclopedia any favours to go through years of history looking for bad behaviour, without evidence of an ongoing issue that risks further disruption to the project. – bradv🍁 16:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, having carefully considered the issues presented, I agree with bradv, who phrased the reasoning better than I could. Maxim_(talk) 17:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline but with a caveat. I agree that the incidents raised in the complaint are stale, minor, isolated, and/or resolved and also that JzG and Slugger O'Toole would be well-advised to avoid each other. The real question is whether to have a case focused on JzG's level of civility. JzG is a dedicated, experienced, knowledgeable administrator who works in some difficult areas, but he could generally be equally effective with a different tone, and as amply shown above, it isn't as if people haven't spoken to him about this before—evidence that is stale in terms of current action may still be quite relevant for pattern recognition. And while I don't want to restart the tired debate about the role of "rude words" on Wikipedia, a lot of us have also been here a long time while having never used the words "fuck off" on-wiki except in sentences like this one. I'm voting to decline today because I don't see enough recent evidence of serious incivility or personal attacks to warrant convening an admin-conduct case—but the outcome might be different if we find ourselves back here with a more solid request for a case, based on incidents occurring after today. JzG, there might be people out there looking for a good reason to file a new request. Don't give them one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as stale and resolved at ANI. JzG has stated to keep away from Slugger O'Toole. Examples cited post previous RFAR findings all relate to conflict with this person. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Apologies for not being here in a timely manner. I do agree that JzG has a history of problematic behaviour, but those were brought to Arbcom and decisions were made. The recent ANI disputes do not appear to be intractable, so we are left to the "admin misconduct" quick pass. I did waver there, I'm a strong believer in admins being held to account for their behaviour. However, this request seems to be an attempt to throw old mud at the wall and hope it's still sticky. I echo the advice to JzG from NYB, and decline here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]